President Vladimir Putin has issued a stark warning, indicating a willingness to deploy nuclear weapons should Western forces approach Russia’s borders. This ominous declaration, made during his annual national address, mirrors the typically belligerent rhetoric previously associated with Dmitry Medvedev, a Putin ally and former president.
You Can Also Read: GLOBAL QUESTIONS HOPPING UP: WILL NATO INTERVENE MILITARILY IN UKRAINE?
Traditionally, Medvedev, who served as Russia’s president from 2008 to 2012 and later as prime minister before assuming a top security role in 2020, has been the voice behind nuclear threats and inflammatory social media posts. Analysts, such as Kyiv-based Aleksey Kushch, note that Medvedev’s style often resembled the apocalyptic visions of US filmmaker Quentin Tarantino.
A Stark Red Line in Response to Western Military Musings
In a surprising shift, Putin has now elevated the tension, responding directly to French President Emmanuel Macron’s acknowledgment of the potential deployment of European troops to Ukraine. Putin’s warning comes as a direct response to the West’s contemplation of military intervention in Ukraine.
During his address, Putin asserted, “The consequences for possible interventionists will be way more tragic. They should eventually realize that we also have weapons that can hit targets on their territory. Everything that the West comes up with creates the real threat of a conflict with the use of nuclear weapons, and thus the destruction of civilization.”
This strategic move by Putin signifies a clear red line regarding the use of nuclear capabilities. Moscow boasts the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, complete with cutting-edge hypersonic missiles and a significantly larger number of tactical nuclear weapons compared to the collective Western powers. The gravity of Putin’s warning is intensified by the fact that he has shifted the focus to nuclear options, a line that Macron seemingly probed during recent interactions.
“The consequences for possible interventionists will be way more tragic. They should eventually realize that we also have weapons that can hit targets on their territory. Everything that the West comes up with creates the real threat of a conflict with the use of nuclear weapons, and thus the destruction of civilization.”
– Vladimir Putin, President of Russia
In the carefully orchestrated national address, Putin has thrust the specter of nuclear conflict into the spotlight, leaving the international community on edge and the consequences of potential intervention in Ukraine shrouded in a dark and uncertain climax.
Putin’s Aggressive Stance Echoes Cold War Tactics
But to Boris Bondarev, a senior Russian diplomat who quit his job to protest against Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, there was “nothing new” in Putin’s menacing diatribe.
The threats were Putin’s “usual scares and a projection of his own unrealized desires onto the West,” Bondarev, who served in the United Nations office in Geneva until 2022, said.
This was not the first time Moscow bared its teeth in a confrontation with the United States and Europe.
Soviet helmsman Nikita Khrushchev banged his shoe on the podium in the United Nations headquarters in New York in 1960 ranting about “toady American imperialism” and promising “further interventions”.
Two years later, Khrushchev provoked the Caribbean Missile Crisis that nearly triggered a nuclear apocalypse.
Soviet leaders in the late 1970s and early 1980s routinely hinted at the possibility of a nuclear war until Mikhail Gorbachev started his perestroika reforms that prompted a sign of relief in the West, but buried the USSR.
During the war in Ukraine, the Kremlin pulled out of nuclear arms control treaties with Washington in moves that many predicted would start a new arms race.
“This is not a bluff,” Putin said in 2022 when announcing the possibility of a nuclear strike.
“Putin’s regime has not once used the scare of a nuclear war to frighten the West and convince it not to provide military aid to Ukraine,” Alisher Ilkhamov, head of Central Asia Due Diligence, a think tank in London, told Al Jazeera.
“In the past, the scare was usually voiced over by Medvedev and all sorts of propagandists, now it’s Putin’s turn to announce them,” he said.
And it wasn’t Macron’s assumption that irked Putin – it was Ukraine’s success in striking airfields, fuel depots, warships, and military planes deep in Russia and Russia-occupied areas, Ilkhamov said.
Uneven Military Might and Reluctance to Engage NATO
Hitherto, the West has successfully escalated its commitment, furnishing Ukraine with increasingly potent weaponry while steadfastly overlooking the Kremlin’s menacing threats, as noted by Alisher Ilkhamov. Ilkhamov, recognizing this stark inequality, predicts Putin’s reluctance to engage in a confrontation with NATO, asserting that Russia’s military-industrial potential is too depleted to sustain an all-out conflict.
“The power of [both] sides is too unequal,” Ilkhamov underscores. “Putin has nothing to lean on in the confrontation with the West. He understands it very well and won’t go farther beyond the scares.”
Yet, the assessment of Putin’s actions goes beyond mere geopolitical calculations. Yulia Navalnaya, widow of the late Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny, offers a chilling perspective. Describing Putin not as a politician but as a “bloody monster” leading an organized criminal group, she emphasizes the futility of conventional diplomatic measures, resolutions, and sanctions.
“It’s impossible to harm Putin with yet another resolution or yet another batch of sanctions that are no different from previous ones. You can’t win over him thinking he is a man with principles, with morals and rules,” warns Navalnaya in a video statement.
It’s impossible to harm Putin with yet another resolution or yet another batch of sanctions that are no different from previous ones. You can’t win over him thinking he is a man with principles, with morals and rules
– Yulia Navalnaya, widow of the late Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny
Denial, Threats, and the Urgent Need for Troop Withdrawal
During Putin’s recent speech, a notable aspect was his apparent denial of Russia’s role in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, now in its third year. Ivar Dale, a senior policy adviser with the Norwegian Helsinki Committee, highlights Putin’s evasion of responsibility.
“I noticed during Putin’s speech that he said Russia did not start the war,” observes Dale. “He thought about the risks, he decided to do it, and he failed. The right thing to do now is to withdraw all troops from Ukraine, and not continue to threaten innocent people with a nuclear holocaust.”
As Putin’s history of blackmail unfolds, Nikolay Mitrokhin of Germany’s Bremen University advocates for a robust response from the West. Acknowledging the potential crossing of a “red line” with the deployment of NATO troops to aid Ukraine, Mitrokhin suggests that such a move could significantly bolster Ukraine’s position, potentially freeing up crucial resources currently committed to safeguarding the rear and the border with the breakaway region of Transnistria.
